Meredith L. Lawrence v. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP
2024-CA-0572
| Ky. Ct. App. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Meredith L. Lawrence and his LLC, Cut-n-Shoot, engaged Bingham, Greenebaum, Doll, LLP (Bingham) as legal counsel and secured payment with a mortgage on property in Gallatin County, Kentucky (the “Marathon Property”).
- Lawrence defaulted on his legal fees; Bingham foreclosed on the property. Lawrence challenged the foreclosure, arguing (among other things) legal malpractice and improper attorney conduct in securing a mortgage interest under SCR Rule 1.8(a).
- Litigation led to multiple appeals, including to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which ordered further proceedings on the fairness and compliance of the mortgage transaction under Rule 1.8(a).
- On remand, the trial court found the arrangement met Rule 1.8(a) and reinstated Bingham’s mortgage; appellate courts affirmed, mandating enforcement of the mortgage.
- Lawrence continued to contest enforcement and amounts owed (principal, interest, attorney’s fees), arguing the prior sale and subsequent reconveyance extinguished Bingham’s rights.
- The Court of Appeals addressed two consolidated appeals regarding (i) enforcement and sale orders, (ii) sale procedures and distribution of proceeds, ultimately affirming all lower court orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of mortgage post-voided sale | Sale and reconveyance exhausted Bingham’s mortgage | Sale was voided; mortgage remains enforceable | Mortgage was not extinguished; remains valid post-reconveyance |
| Scope of judgment/amounts owed | Only principal owed; interest/fees not allowed | Full amounts, incl. interest, fees owed as per note | Full award (principal, interest, fees) proper, per res judicata and prior holdings |
| Compliance with court’s appellate mandate | Trial court failed to follow remand instructions | Court followed mandate to enforce mortgage | Trial court correctly applied mandate, enforced mortgage as directed |
| Procedures of judicial sale/appraisal | Appraisers unqualified; notice/procedure deficient | Appraisers qualified, procedures followed | Appraisers qualified, process satisfactory, no substantial prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP v. Lawrence, 567 S.W.3d 127 (Ky. 2018) (addressed enforceability of promissory note and mortgage arrangement)
- Lawrence v. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, L.L.P., 599 S.W.3d 813 (Ky. 2019) (remand for further Rule 1.8(a) analysis on attorney-client transaction fairness)
- Buckley v. Wilson, 177 S.W.3d 778 (Ky. 2005) (mandate rule for remanded cases)
- Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. 1982) (scope of appellate court review on remand)
- Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2003) (standard for review of factual findings)